Fire McChrystal and Get Out of Afghanistan

Although the politicians, media, and public believe few things are more important than preventing another al-Qaeda attack on America, defending the founding principles of the republic would seem to be one of them.

The conventional wisdom is that the war in Afghanistan is a “war of necessity” that cannot be lost if the war against al-Qaeda is to be won. This proposition is only now being questioned because the fraud-plagued Afghan election makes a legitimate government almost impossible and because the war in Afghanistan has turned into an eight-year quagmire that is getting worse by the day. Not only is the conventional wisdom wrong, but Gen. Stanley McChrystal should be fired, even if it means losing the war.

McChrystal, much like Gen. Douglas MacArthur during the Korean War, has publicly spoken out about decisions that are the exclusive purview of the elected civilian leadership. At great cost to his popularity, President Harry Truman cast a great blow for the critical republican principle of civilian control over the military by firing the insubordinate MacArthur. President Obama could do the same with far less cost; McChrystal just took his job and is not a popular war hero, as was MacArthur.

The founders of the United States—reacting to warlike monarchies of Europe and their own suspicions of standing armies as a threat to liberty—realized that the principle of civilian control over the military was crucial to the survival of a republican form of government. The ill effects of militaries meddling in the civilian affairs of state have recently been demonstrated in Honduras and Thailand. But hypocritically, at the same time President Obama is letting Gen. McChrystal publicly undermine his freedom of action on whether to pour more U.S. troops into the Afghan tar pit, the United States is making increased aid to Pakistan dependent on the Pakistani military staying out of civilian business.

Whether Obama takes the politically incorrect and unlikely route of firing McChrystal, the U.S. must face two stark facts. First, a surge in Afghanistan to match the “successful” surge in Iraq is not likely to work because Afghanistan is a larger country with guerilla-friendly mountainous terrain, has a more zealous insurgency than Iraq, and where the insurgency has a sanctuary (in Pakistan). And now Afghanistan will likely have an illegitimate government.

Besides, it is far from clear that the surge in Iraq worked. In 2005, the U.S. also conducted a similar troop surge in Iraq, and violence increased. Prior ethnic cleansing and paying off Sunni guerillas to redirect their belligerence from U.S. forces to al-Qaeda are probably more likely reasons for the lower violence, which is likely to be temporary. Iraq’s underlying ethno-sectarian fissures remain, the country’s security is fragile, and violence will likely erupt again when the U.S. draws down its forces.

Second, even opponents of the surge in Afghanistan understate their case against it. Their correct conclusions are that in a democracy, it is dangerous to escalate a war on which U.S. public opinion has soured after eight long years of losing and that al-Qaeda in Pakistan can be effectively fought using fewer troops, drones, cruise missiles, and intelligence. However, proponents of the surge answer, seemingly cogently, that Afghanistan must be stabilized or it will be a safe haven yet again from which al-Qaeda will attack the United States.

Because politicians are intrinsically cautious when it comes to national security, the proponents are likely to win this argument unless Americans finally face up to the question that they have avoided since 9/11: Why do radical Islamists, such as al-Qaeda, which are halfway across the world, focus their attacks on the United States?

The answer is in plain sight, but it is too painful for Americans to acknowledge. Osama bin Laden has repeatedly given us his reasons—U.S. occupation of Muslim lands and support for corrupt Middle Eastern dictators. For example, in 1998, bin Laden charged that it was “an individual duty for every Muslim” to “kill the Americans” and drive their military “out of all the lands of Islam.”

So the nation-building, drug-busting fiasco in Afghanistan is merely inflaming the Islamist urge to throw out the foreign occupiers. It is no coincidence that the resurgence of the Taliban is correlated with increases in the foreign military presence in Afghanistan. Furthermore, nation-building in Afghanistan has destabilized neighboring Pakistan, a country with nuclear weapons.

In conclusion, the likely futile attempt to stabilize Afghanistan to prevent another safe haven for al-Qaeda is actually fueling the fires of anti-U.S. Islamist rage. Withdrawing from Afghanistan and focusing on neutralizing the real threat from al-Qaeda in Pakistan—not the Taliban—using the aforementioned techniques with a lighter footprint will give the U.S. better results.

DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed here are those of the individual contributor(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the LA Progressive, its publisher, editor or any of its other contributors.

About Ivan Eland

Ivan Eland is Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute. Dr. Eland is a graduate of Iowa State University and received an M.B.A. in applied economics and a Ph.D. in Public Policy from George Washington University. He has been Director of Defense Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, and he spent 15 years working for Congress on national security issues, including stints as an investigator for the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Principal Defense Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office. He also has served as Evaluator-in-Charge (national security and intelligence) for the U.S. General Accounting Office (now the Government Accountability Office), and has testified on the military and financial aspects of NATO expansion before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on CIA oversight before the House Government Reform Committee, and on the creation of the Department of Homeland Security before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Dr. Eland is the author of The Empire Has No Clothes: U.S. Foreign Policy Exposed and Putting “Defense” Back into U.S. Defense Policy, as well as The Efficacy of Economic Sanctions as a Foreign Policy Tool. He is a contributor to numerous volumes and the author of 45 in-depth studies on national security issues.

His articles have appeared in American Prospect, Arms Control Today, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Emory Law Journal, The Independent Review, Issues in Science and Technology (National Academy of Sciences), Mediterranean Quarterly, Middle East and International Review, Middle East Policy, Nexus, Chronicle of Higher Education, American Conservative, International Journal of World Peace, and Northwestern Journal of International Affairs. Dr. Eland's popular writings have appeared in such publications as the Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, USA Today, Houston Chronicle, Dallas Morning News, New York Times, Chicago Sun-Times, San Diego Union-Tribune, Miami Herald, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Newsday, Sacramento Bee, Orange County Register, Washington Times, Providence Journal, The Hill, and Defense News. He has appeared on ABC's “World News Tonight,” NPR's “Talk of the Nation,” PBS, Fox News Channel, CNBC, Bloomberg TV, CNN, CNN “Crossfire,” CNN-fn, C-SPAN, MSNBC, Canadian Broadcasting Corp. (CBC), Canadian TV (CTV), Radio Free Europe, Voice of America, BBC, and other local, national, and international TV and radio programs.

Comments

The war on terrorism is not Viet Nam or like any war we have ever fought. Firing General McChrystal would be illogical, unreasonable, and severely weaken military moral. He did not speak against President Obama or challenge him like Gen. MacArthur did Pres. Truman. Why would you fire a man who has given so much to his country and certainly acted like he had been given the freedom to speak to the press, at least when he appeared on Sixty Minutes? Lets not forget the the next al-Qaeda attack on the US is (according to Osama Bin Laden) going to be a nuclear one. Do we dare not take him at his word? Should we allow Osama Bin Laden to dictate US foreign policy? We elected Obama to get us out of Iraq and finish the job in Afghanistan. The question is how do we do that without killing innocent people or having our soldiers and civilians killed. We know the John Wayne approach is not going to work so it has to be nation building, education, infrastructure, and communication. General McChrystal said as much. The opium poppy issue must be solved by removing the profit motive. We must be prepared to continue this for as long as it takes and where ever it takes us. Repeat this over and over until it sinks in. Imagine NYC in a mushroom cloud while repeating. This is a war of ideas more than anything. Radical Islamic extremism must not be allowed to prevail. General McChrystal should be fired even if we lose the war? The only real “win” from any of this is if we can prevent a nuclear terrorist attack. Appeasement of al-Qaeda, Bin Laden, the Taliban, or any terrorists is a mistake. Do you really believe al-Qaeda will disband and stop being terrorists if we accede to their demands? We need to push for new legitimate elections in Afghanistan and work with the elected government, at the same time keeping as low a profile as possible and continue to carry out the mission. It will be a long, difficult, delicate, and expensive balancing act. The alternative is unthinkable, horrible, unimaginable, and staggeringly expensive!!!

i like your colum,i feel that we can win if the commander let his soldiers attack instead of waiting to defend themself putting them in danger dont cut airstrike because you want to proteck the civiliens,that should not be around the ennemys our soldiers should have number one priority in war if they ask for airstrike .thank you

Los Angeles

Cheryl Dorsey: Beck is leaving two years before completing his second term. I bet if you were to ask the parents of Ezell Ford—the unarmed 25-year-old black man killed by LAPD officers in 2014—they’d probably say that they wished Beck had left a lot sooner.

Economic Issues

RJ Eskow: If today’s resistance is to become a lasting movement, we must decide what we’re for. Otherwise, the Resistance will fail to motivate the 38 percent of Americans who didn’t vote in the last election.